Extracted Text

The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:

SRN L-STI-2012-00678

A Realistic Examination of Cold Fusion Claims 24 Years LaterKirk L. ShanahanIntroductionOn March 29, 1989, chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced they had discovered aneffect whose explanation was required to lie in the realm of nuclear reactions. Their claim, and thosesubsequent to it of roughly similar nature, became known as 'cold fusion'. Research continues to thisday on this effect, but what has become clear is that whatever it is, it is not a conventional fusionprocess. Thus the 'cold fusion' moniker is somewhat inappropriate and many current researchers in thefield prefer the term "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)", although other terms have been coined forit as well. However, two salient facts are relevant: (1) these researchers still claim that said reactions doexist, and (2) these researchers claim there is a conspiracy by the scientific establishment to suppresstheir research. In recent years there have been several efforts aimed at revitalizing the image of thefield which have had some success:- A second review of the field by the US Department of Energy Office of Basic Sciences wasconducted in late 2004, albeit with basically unchanged conclusions compared to thosepresented from the first DOE review in late 1989.- Numerous new books and survey papers have been published detailing 'positive' researchresults.- Several government entities have voiced and given partial support for renewed LENR research.The stakes regarding this field are perceived as being quite high. LENR advocates promise nearly freeenergy arising from applications based on the effect(s), and thus indirectly promise significantreductions in conflicts due to disputes over limited natural energy resources. Given the USDOE'sresponsibilities in the energy and weapons areas, it would seem true that the DOE should have as fulland complete understanding of the field as possible.Unfortunately, another development over the preceding several years has been the disappearance ofnegative commentary on the scientific basis of the field. This has occurred because the scientificmainline had concluded by c. 1992 that the field was an example of 'pathological science'. Due to that,research was discouraged in the area and in fact 'cold fusion' publications were frowned upon. This onlyled to the claims of suppression by advocates. In fact there is some limited truth to this statement. Thisauthor, being one of the only remaining critics of the field, has suffered the same consequences forattempting to publish articles critical of LENR. This is a failure on the part of the mainlineestablishment, as the results developed out of the LENR research do in fact show something ishappening to produce signals which might be interpreted as supporting nuclear reactions (which is whatencourages and sustains LENR researchers), but which can also be interpreted via a set of unique andinteresting conventional processes. The focus of this document is to describe and address recentobjections to such processes so that subsequent LENR research can be guided to develop information